30 year old Vari-X III vs New glass

[crabo]

I was reading the reviews on the Weaver tactical scope and wondering how the old Luepolds Vari-X III would hold up against the newer glass in something like the Weaver.Anyone done any testing?

[Lloyd Smale]

good scope but leupold has come along ways since them. the same quality glass the old vari xIII had is now in the vx1 which buy the way is a fine scope. Only comparison i can make is against my 1x3 weaver and the old vxIII and the new vx1 both outperfom that scope in low light but then they should due to larger objective lenses.

[seagiant]

Hi,
Well.. actually ALL scopes are better now as the glass on even "cheap scopes" are multi-coated! BSA,Leapers,what I considered pure junk years ago are actually getting good reviews now for a bargain scope!

Where the difference to me is the actual materials and construction "workmanship" between the USA,Japan and Chinese made scopes!

[Doc Highwall]

I think all optics have improved in the last 30 years due to the use of CNC machines and computers.

Todays hunting bullets are as good or better then target bullets from 30 years ago also for the same reason.

[C. Latch]

I'm not sure what year Leupold started to fully multicoat the lenses on the Vari-X IIIs, but there was a marked difference in optical quality when that happened; I've shot Leupolds from the late 70's that were decidedly mediocre compared to more modern scopes.

Having said that, I have several vari-x IIIs that are approaching 20 years old and they are still optically excellent.

[Lloyd Smale]

vari x IIIs were allways multi coated. Its the vary x II line that at one time wasnt.

[C. Latch]

vari x IIIs were allways multi coated. Its the vary x II line that at one time wasnt.

My granfather had a Vari-X III in 6.5-20x that either was not multicoated, or had the poorest multicoated lenses I've ever looked through. He bought it in the mid-80's from someone who had wrecked the adjustments and had Leupold fix it. Looking at the external lenses of the scope, instead of them having a greenish tint, they were more-or-less clear and colorless. Optical clarity was great, but low-light performance was not.

[M-Tecs]

The oldest Vari-X III had friction adjustments and single coated lenses.

The middle Vari-X III had click adjustments and single coated lenses.

The last Vari-X III had click adjustments and Multicoat-4 lens coatings.

Multicoat-4 lens coatings have a greenish tint instead of the blue tint on the single coat.

I don't have a Weaver tactical scope so I can't compare. In good light my mid70's single coat Vari-X III's still compare well to the Multicoat-4's. In low light the Multicoat-4's do have an advantage.

Tracking is the most important aspect of a scope for me. I have a bunch of Vari-X III's. All the Vari-X III's that I purchased new are just a clear as the day I purchased them. I do have some used ones that have a noticeable decrease in optical quality. I suspect improper cleaning and damage to the coating?

[Lloyd Smale]

can you show me that in print somewhere. I know they made the var x III with friction ajustments in the beginning but I remember the adds when it came out that the differnce between it and the vari x II was that the lenses were fully multicoated.

[M-Tecs]

Before I posted I looked and I couldn't find anything irrefutable. Various posting claim single verse Mult. That is the way I remember it. I have a 1975 var x III with friction ajustments that has the blue tint lens. I have a later one with click adjustements but still blue tint lens. All the ones I purchased since the mid 90s have the greenish tint. I have read references that claimed Leupold didnt start Mult-coating until the mid 90's. I believe that is about when the color change happened but it is possible the the blue tint lens are an older type of mult-coating.

[gmsharps]

It's been about 20 years since I did a comparison test. I worked at a pawn/gun shop and we had a sizeable assortment of optics and I gathered up a bag of them one day and took them to secluded area that night that had a decent moon out and set up a target for reference. At about 75 yards the cheap scopes like Tasco and Simmons you could not see the target at all. I had a Kahles that you could see the reticle and everything necessary to make a shot. The Zeiss was also just as good. The Leopold's I tested you could see well enough for a shot but the reticle you could not see. We also tested a Burris and it worked well for clarity for both Reticle and area. I'm sure Leopold and several others have changed coatings and optic quality since then and would like to try it again to see the difference. This was not that scientific but just a can you see to make a shot or not deal. The reticles that were visible were mostly the European style that are typically thicker. All of the scopes would have worked fine for daytime shooting. Just my observations.

gmsharps

gmsharps

[HangFireW8]

The oldest Vari-X III had friction adjustments and single coated lenses.

The middle Vari-X III had click adjustments and single coated lenses.

The last Vari-X III had click adjustments and Multicoat-4 lens coatings.

Multicoat-4 lens coatings have a greenish tint instead of the blue tint on the single coat.

I don't have a Weaver tactical scope so I can't compare. In good light my mid70's single coat Vari-X III's still compare well to the Multicoat-4's. In low light the Multicoat-4's do have an advantage.

Tracking is the most important aspect of a scope for me. I have a bunch of Vari-X III's. All the Vari-X III's that I purchased new are just a clear as the day I purchased them. I do have some used ones that have a noticeable decrease in optical quality. I suspect improper cleaning and damage to the coating?

I'm pretty sure your description is wrong. Vari-x III was introduced in 1998 and discontinued in 2004 and was always fully multicoated and click adjustments.

http://www.leupold.com/resources/faqs

It was the specs on the Vari-X II that changed over time. Some got clicks and a multi coated objective, like my 3-9x Tactical. Most did not.

[M-Tecs]

I'm pretty sure your description is wrong. Vari-x III was introduced in 1998 and discontinued in 2004 and was always fully multicoated and click adjustments.

http://www.leupold.com/resources/faqs

It was the specs on the Vari-X II that changed over time. Some got clicks and a multi coated objective, like my 3-9x Tactical. Most did not.

Possibly about single verse Multi coat but not about the start date of 1974. My first Vari-X III is a 3.5 x 10 puchased in 1975. I still have it. If the blue tint lens are Multi-coat than I am wrong.

http://riflescopesinfo.wordpress.com...he-difference/
In 1974 Leupold have introduced Vari-X III series that had 92% light transmission, 44 MOA adjustment range and power indicator with range estimation. Both Vari-X II and Vari-X III series remained unchanged until 1984 when they were upgraded

Vari-x III was introduced in 1998 and discontinued in 2004

That info I believe is for the Vari-X III Long Range. I have 5 of those. They changed to the Mark 4 LR. The last of the Vari-X III Long Range had dual springs. Two of mine are dual the others are single. Purchased them all through Midway at the model close out.

http://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthr...ie_start_Multi
The Leupold Answer Guide

Multi-Coat 4
A special, high transmission lens coating introduced on selected Leupold optics in 1990. The use of MC4 coating will increase light transmission in a rifle scope by 8% to 10%. This coating is featured on all Leupold Vari-X III and Mark 4 models as well as selected M8's. On these models, all lens surfaces are coated with MC4 to give the maximum light transmission and low light performance. The new VX II models now have MC4 on the external surfaces of the objective and eyepiece lenses.

[Lloyd Smale]

heres my take on the figures you posted. NO scope with single coat lenses is going to give 92 percent light transmittion and if those figures are right when they went to multicoat 4 lenses and claimed a 10 percent increase that would put them over a 100 percent.

I doubt theres EVER been a scope at any price that actually did better then 95 percent. I believe (and i could be wrong) that leupold used to rate the vari x 2 single coat scope at 89 percent. About where a GOOD single coat lense should be and that might be stretching it a bit. My guess here is the vari x 3 was multicoated from the git go. How many coatings was never advertised. Id guess that it was less the 4 and when they came out with the multi coat 4 lenses it was a slight improvement. Funny thing is that they advertised the first vxII scopes with multicoat 4 lenses at 92 percent. Right about where they should have been.

Who really knows? I dont think you can scrape off a layer of coating and count how many they are and in all reality light transmition ratings on scopes are just a maketing ploy. Look at the new nikon prostaffs. They sell them right along side the monarchs at much cheaper prices and claim better light transmition with the prostaff. Ive looked side by side at both and the monarchs are hands down better in low light. There better then the old prostaffs and probably better in low light then the buckmasters but the monarchs hands down beat them all.

Id say the newest version of the vx2 is about dead even with a monarch in low light. Problem here too is that everyones eyes are a bit differnt and absorb light differently and also if your scope isnt focused properly you give up alot of light transmition and id bet that 3/4s of the scopes that are out in the field are used by guys who dont have a clue how to properly focus there scopes. Thats a big reason why someone uniformed that goes to a gun shop or trys a few scopes others have will sometimes claim a cheap scope seems clearer and picks up light better then a good scope or in a gunshop claim it because just out of luck the cheap one is better focused to there vision weaknesses

[lovedogs]

Crabo's original question was how the two scopes held up. I've not used the newer Weaver mentioned but can give an opinion on the older Vari XIII. I've had several Leupolds, including the old Vari XIII, and they've given really good service. The only problems I've ever had was when they wore out. They weren't "broken" but got so they wouldn't adjust correctly. In every instance their service was great. They came back home in about one week. They always included a work sheet explaining what had been done. They were completely gone through and rebuilt. Just like new. I don't think I've ever had service from any scope company that was better and they've held up just fine.

[GabbyM]

My granfather had a Vari-X III in 6.5-20x that either was not multicoated, or had the poorest multicoated lenses I've ever looked through. He bought it in the mid-80's from someone who had wrecked the adjustments and had Leupold fix it. Looking at the external lenses of the scope, instead of them having a greenish tint, they were more-or-less clear and colorless. Optical clarity was great, but low-light performance was not.

Yes I have one of those I acquired on a used rifle. Thought I was getting a good deal. Rifle barrel was almost shot out as it was after all a 243 Win. I use the scope now on my cast boolit 243 for 100 and 200 yard shooting. It's pretty good for that.

Last piece of glass I bought was a Trigicon ACOG 1.5X compact for my old SP-1. WOW! Eye relief on that thing is face up into it to all the way back on the but stock. Glows in the dark so if you can see it you can shoot it. Now I PAID $69.95 for that SP-1 at K-Mart a while back. So yes the ACOG cost way more than the rifle. But my old eyes don't do irons like they used to. Got me another new barrel for that girl too. Criterion makes them.

[Lloyd Smale]

love my acog but mine is a 4x and eye relief is pretty poor on it. You about have to be on top of it. Had to actualy modify the mount to get it back far enough on the flat top ar its on. Progbaly should have bought the 3x unit. Its not only cheaper but has better eye relief. Just doesnt have the spotting lines that the military wants.